About this policy that allows guns in National Parks

Can they be fired as well as carried? Or is this just authorizing conceal carry without allowing guns to be fired?

Thanks.

would intend to use it. Seems illogical to me.

There are lots of public places where people can carry concealed weapons. The city park. The subway. The library. Baskin-robbins.

Yet we haven't got a rash of hilly billies shooting up Baskin-robbins.

Getting worked up over this seems illogical to me.

Not yet- though that can't be said for a lot of other venues.

Or families.

Lawful, non-threatening carry of a concealed handgun is proactive in nature, not predicated by any assumed intent.

Or am I too much of an optimist?

yes.

and nobody (but the shooter) is around to hear it,

is it still fired?

hours in the "forests and Parks" in MN. There is NO reason to carry a gun at all in those places that is unless the intention is to ease into using those places as hunting grounds. People can already carry mace, knives or other implements of defense.

you cant have a firearm on you in bow season unless you have a ccl or you are on your own property and a sow with piglets can be mean and I don't need to have a stand off with a bow

Last year a buddy of mine spent 3 hours in the bed of his truck with 8 pigs around him he was poking them with a broadhead trying to get them to leave

the imagery is hilarious.

How's that saying go, if you shoot a wild pig? Shoot, drop the rifle, climb a tree? Boars can mess you up. Bigtime.
Kind of expensive, but this might make a good gag gift for your friend:
http://www.coldsteel.com/boarspear.html

his b-day is in aug

A cop can't just go around shooting his gun either. There has to be a reason to shoot it unless you are at an appropriate place for plinking or target shooting. If there is a reason to have to shoot the damned thing then it makes little difference what the local rule is - does it? The only justification for shooting it other than as described above is in defense of life and the save-yourself and your loved-ones trumps the rest of the rules.

Haven't seen anything yet on open carry of rifles or shotguns, though.

Any handguns brought into a National Park would still have to pass legal muster in the state in which the park resides. For starters, you'd need a valid CHL license. And if your state requires you to have a permit to own a firearm (like Illinois' FOID card), you'll need to bring that as well.

Thanks for answering.

...try to be able to reason every once in a while.

The ban on concealed weapons didn't prevent one shooting in the parks.

Why? Because anybody wanting to kill somebody in a park would ignore the law.

Now, sure. Hypothetically, devil's advocate, if you had a massive gun control program and actually took away guns on a large scale, maybe you could reduce shootings.

But silly laws like no concealed weapons in national parks, or no concealed weapons between the hours of 3 and 5 PM on saturday afternoons, all that's just completely ineffective.

Nobody ever loses their temper, and shoots someone as a result.

Dumak, please.

That's just silly.

Yet violent crime rates are so low in state parks that they might as well be zero. Why do you think there will be a difference between state and national parks?

just because they are banned does not mean they aren't there

:eyes:

But they still won't get it.

it would also stand to reason that there are no shootings at schools, because loaded guns aren't allowed in schools.

NPS reported 11 murders, 35 rapes, 61 robberies and 261 aggrivated assaults occured in parks. Add to this the drug activities - trading, meth manufacture, marijuana fields, and illegal alien smuggling routes. The National Parks are actually fairly dangerous.

"The National Parks are actually fairly dangerous."

Actually, no, they're remarkable safe places. Of the millions of people who visit national parks every year, those are very low numbers of crime. Although it's easy to see why people might think national parks are dangerous, and would like to carry a gun for protection.

based on those statistics? :shrug:

The National Parks are remarkably safe places with very low crime. Stay away from the big game and don't wander off the trail around dangerous features, and folks should be okay.

you would come up with a rather low crime rate.

Last time I was at the Grand Canyon, there were at least 375 people (actually quite a bit more than that) there on that one day. Your figures show 375 crimes in all the national parks in the entire year. Seems pretty low risk to me.

They're calculated based on the number of inhabitants. The New York City crime rate is probably quite low if you were to count all the people who came into, but do not reside, in the city (e.g. commuters, tourists, etc.), especially if you counted every visitor each time they entered the city (one commuter from Westchester might easily count for 200 or more visits a year that way). What you really should be looking at is the average number of visitors present in the National Parks at any given moment and take that as a substitute for the "permanent" population.

Bear in mind, moreover, that you can't reasonably compare many National Parks to densely populated cities. Rural areas have lower crime rates (per capita) than cities simply by dint of being less densely populated, and National Park wilderness areas may be more readily compared to surrounding rural areas.

until it happens to you or one of your loved-ones.

I just love seeing some would-be thug's eyes get as big as saucers when he sees some serious HEAT being pointed at his face!

You should try it sometime.

Your words.
The most gruesome and heinous acts have occurred in places like schools and shopping malls where firearms are prohibited (for the LAW ABIDING) 'for your safety'. They do not occur in places with HIGH CONCENTRATIONS of firearms like shooting ranges, police stations and military bases in the US.

Furthermore, just to drive the point home a little further, nearly as many people are murdered (per capita) in PRISON each year and NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED. Your argument states by inverse that the absence of firearms ensures safety. It does not.

You managed to find one instance where a person committed murder in a shooting range. There are probably a few others out there as well. Now, add those up, and add up how many have been killed in 'gun free zones' and the difference is tremendous.

And half of all gun deaths are suicides.

The ratio of gun suicides to gun homicides in the US has been roughly 5:4 for the past thirty years. Even so, the suicide rate in the US is not remarkably high compared to most "first world" countries. According to OECD data published in 2008, the US suicide rate was slightly below Germany and Canada's (all around 10/100,000), and significantly lower than France's (~15/100,000) and Japan's (~19/100,000).

The apparent fact is, if someone plans to commit suicide, that person will use the quickest and most effective method available. If they can get hold of a gun, they'll use a gun; if they can't get hold of a gun, they'll use a rope, or razor blades and a bath tub. Or in the case of Japan, 60-odd people killed themselves in April 2008 alone by gassing themselves with hydrogen-sulfide gas (created by mixing toilet-bowl cleaner with bath salts). Because hydrogen-sulfide gas dissipates slowly, other people are put at risk, especially in the apartment blocks common in Japan. In the case of one 14 year-old who gassed herself, her mother had to be hospitalized and 100 neighbors evacuated.

So there's worse ways to commit suicide, in the sense of forming a posthumous burden on others, than shooting yourself.

Objectives. In this study we explored the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide across the United States, by age groups.

Methods. We used cross-sectional time-series data (1988–1997) to estimate the association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide.

Results. In region- and state-level analyses, a robust association between rates of household firearm ownership and homicide was found. Regionally, the association exists for victims aged 5 to 14 years and those 35 years and older. At the state level, the association exists for every age group over age 5, even after controlling for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, alcohol consumption, and nonlethal violent crime.

Conclusions. Although our study cannot determine causation, we found that in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1988?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Miller&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&volume=92&issue=12&resourcetype=HWCIT

and of course the study was funded by the Joyce Foundation.

David

What's the point of having a gun if you can't fire it?

Generally I'm of the opinion that you should have good reasons for outlawing things.

Freedom vs. security, and all that.

but exceptions are carved out for defense of self or others (level of scrutiny depends on state).

:scared:

If someone asks how you would prefer to be killed and gave you two or three alternative methods, that would IMO constitute a threat and make the person who asked the question a legitimate target.

As has been mentioned, you can't just go around popping off rounds. However, if you were threatened by a wild animal, you would be within your rights to shoot it. If you become lost you could use it to signal. Like I've said in other threads, a large state or national park is really one of the smartest places to have a gun, especially if you plan on hiking/exploring solo or with a small group.

I thought it was forbidden.

What's the rule?

I live in a city in western Washington state. While, due to a state pre-emption law, the city cannot prohibit the possession of firearms, or the carrying of them in public, the city can (and does) have an ordinance in place prohibiting the discharge of a firearm anywhere within the city limits. So I can carry a firearm, but I cannot fire it. If, however, I do fire it in defense of myself or others (e.g. to stop a dog that's threatening my child, which I have very close to doing on one occasion), it is an affirmative defense that I had a compelling reason to break the law. Just like it's generally illegal to shoot someone, except in defense of oneself or others.

So it's quite possible to permit the possession of a firearm in a particular area without permitting its being discharged.

In National Forests and lands administered by the BLM, incidentally, it is legal to discharge firearms, provided one does not endanger others by doing so. So you could go into a National Forest and do some target shooting, state law permitting. You still can't hunt anything that's not in season or if you don't have a tag, though.

Why do you need one? And who the phuck is gonna pay to implement this...rangers need to be trained to identify proper registrations and documents, databases need to be developed...this is cowardly and stupid.

Who will pay for this? Jesus Christ, there's nothing to pay for. You look at the license, if its got the right guy's name on it then he's licensed, if it doesn't, the you can assume its not. You don't think cops or rangers are smart enough to figure that out without additional training?

You sound like a 5 year old screaming because he didn't get his own way.

Just like everywhere else.

...And who the phuck is gonna pay to implement this...rangers need to be trained to identify proper registrations and documents, databases need to be developed...

Relax. The states have already taken care of all that.

Then the rangers have to check to make sure you are legally carrying?

Sounds like a bit of a hassle to me. I am hoping there will be a separate entrance for those who ccw so they don't hold up the line of cars entering the park.

the point of concealed carry is to.. wait for it.. keep it concealed.

The only time a ranger might ask to see if you're legal is if you actually use it to defend yourself, or if you accidentally expose your gun in front of a ranger.

I don't understand your question. You don't have to declare it when you enter a shopping mall or an urban park or a state park (in states that allow concealed carry).

I don't think you understand how the system works.

still illogical, but still popular

How many girls with their hands bound and their throats slit is an acceptable number?
None if it's my daughter.
http://www.aldha.org/murders.htm

Two women hikers were found slain June 1st, just off the Appalachian Trail near Skyland Lodge in Shenandoah National Park. The bodies were found on National Trails Day by park authorities who had been alerted a day or so before that the women were overdue from a backpacking trip.

Killed were Julianne Williams, 24, of St. Cloud, Minn., and Lollie Winans, 26, of Unity, Maine. They were camped about 1.5 miles from Skyland Lodge, in a spot about 25 yards off the trail near a brook. Their dog, a golden retriever/lab mix named Taj, was found nearby, apparently unharmed. A roll of film found among their belongings was developed, and pictures from that roll have been used in posters seeking information from the public.

Investigators said the women's throats had been cut but officials would not say if the women were sexually assaulted. In a story published Saturday, July 20, the Washington Post reported that FBI officials are considering the possibility that the women were killed by two or more assailants, not one.

New details emerged Saturday that revealed the women's wrists were bound. The Post quoted Stanley Klein, special agent in charge of the FBI's Richmond office, who said one body was found inside their tent and the other was found outside. The women were last seen in the park on May 23, but an autopsy report concluded they died on or after May 27. Investigators have ruled out robbery as a motive.

"We've had hundreds and hundreds of leads to follow," Klein told the Post. "This has been one of the most exhaustive investigations I've seen, and I've been with (the FBI) for 28 years." The story was featured in a segment on the "America's Most Wanted" television show, the same day the Post article appeared. (A transcript of that show is now available.)

Both women were trained as guides for wilderness camping and hiking. "They wanted to help other people learn to be in the outdoors. They were both very experienced outdoorswomen," Peggy Willens told the Associated Press. Willens is executive director of Woodswomen, a Minneapolis-based adventure travel vacation organization for women.

On Thursday, June 20, Attorney General Janet Reno spoke to a homosexual rights group in Roanoke, Virginia, and assured them that authorities are considering anti-lesbian prejudice as a possible motive for the brutal attack. "From the outset, investigators have been exhaustively pursuing all motives, including the possibility that the crime was motivated by the sexual orientation of the victims," Reno was quoted as saying by the Associated Press.

The park service issues frequent updates on the current investigation into the Shenandoah Park tragedy, and have set up a toll-free number for information. A $25,000 reward has also been posted for information that could help federal police.

http://gtnpnews.blogspot.com/2009/01/wyoming-resident-sentenced-for-assault.html

Wyo Resident Sentenced for Assault Incident
January 29, 2009
09-03
An investigation conducted by Grand Teton National Park rangers and the U.S. Attorney’s office resulted in the felony assault conviction and a recent sentence for Michael Jay Smith of Pinedale, Wyoming. Smith was accused of assaulting a park visitor on the Moose-Wilson Road in July of 2007, and following a guilty plea to a charge of Felony Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury, Smith was sentenced in federal district court on December 11, 2008. Smith’s sentence includes 18 months in federal custody, 3 years of supervised probation upon release, as well as restitution fees.

On July 20, 2007, Grand Teton National Park rangers responded to a report of a serious physical altercation on the Moose-Wilson Road. Smith apparently became impatient with a slow moving vehicle whose driver and occupants were trying to locate wildlife along this scenic country road in the southwestern portion of the park. Due to its narrow lanes and winding nature, the Moose-Wilson Road requires slow speeds, especially when the presence of wildlife causes traffic congestion. When the driver of the slow moving vehicle stopped, Smith physically and forcefully assaulted him, rendering him unconscious; Smith then fled the scene. This act of physical assault serves as an example of “road rage,” a situation more often associated with urban areas or interstate highways.

Upon the arrival of park rangers, witnesses were able to provide information about the incident. The initial investigating park ranger determined that Smith attacked the driver of the vehicle in front of him after he stopped to watch a moose on the side of the road along with other wildlife viewers. Park rangers used accounts supplied by witnesses, as well as surveillance evidence, to develop information that eventually led to the use of photographic lineups and the subsequent positive identification of Smith as the assailant.

Smith was eventually indicted by a federal grand jury in March of 2008 and arrested on a federal warrant in the town of Jackson without incident. He was recently sentenced in mid December 2008.

A successful investigation and federal prosecution of this case resulted from the combined law enforcement work of several park rangers, as well as to the invaluable assistance provided by the U.S. Attorney’s office.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19991004&slug=2986896


Park Volunteer Sexually Assaulted On Mount Rainier

By Arthur Santana

Seattle Times Staff Reporter

National Park Service rangers and volunteers have been warned to be on the lookout for suspicious visitors and have been encouraged to travel in pairs after a female volunteer was sexually assaulted Saturday on the Pacific Crest Trail in the eastern area of Mount Rainier National Park.

The FBI and the Park Service, both investigating the incident, are asking for the public's help in finding the man. The FBI released a composite sketch of him this morning.



Park officials said the woman was hospitalized briefly at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle.

She was sexually assaulted near a parking lot in the area where the trail crosses state Highway 410, officials said. The area is near Tipsoo Lake.

The attacker had told the volunteer that someone was hurt off the trail, and the two went together to find the supposedly injured person. Park rangers later found the volunteer after she had been assaulted. Dave Uberuaga, chief of administration for the National Park Service, said the woman is receiving counseling because of the incident.

The suspect, described as a 40- to 45-year-old white man about 6 feet, 2 inches tall, with medium-length, sandy-blond hair, was believed to have left the area.

He is further described as having no facial hair, a heavy build, chubby hands and fingers, a green polar-fleece vest and an unkempt appearance. No arrests had been made as of this morning.

Anyone who may know the man's name or whereabouts is asked to call the FBI at 253-272-8439, or the National Park Service at 360-569-2211, Extension 2348.

Since the incident, officials began taking extra precautions, including traveling in pairs and routinely contacting the communications center concerning their whereabouts, Uberuaga said.

*

ASHLAND, Ore. -- The smell of bacon mixed with wood smoke. The sight of a spectacular waterfall or field of wildflowers. The sound of a bugling elk . . . or nothing at all in the backcountry wilderness.

National parks are meant to be laid-back places where the stress and strain of work and home are left behind for a more mellow experience.

But increasingly, those rangers in their Smokey Bear hats who give talks on nature and lead campfire singalongs -- especially the ones trained in law enforcement -- are facing crime and violence.

A watchdog group last week warned that law enforcement work in national parks is the most dangerous in federal service.

"National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents," the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported. "National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98."

"The National Park Service has an astoundingly poor safety record for its officers," says Randall Kendrick, who represents park rangers as part of the Fraternal Order of Police. "If anything, these assaults against park rangers are undercounted. If there is not a death or injury, pressures within a national park can cause the incident to be reported as being much more minor than it is in reality, and it is not unheard of for an assault to go unreported altogether."

So why all this violence and crime in places that are supposed to be tranquil and relaxing? Alcohol or drugs are part of most violent incidents. Hideaway methamphetamine labs and marijuana fields in rural park areas and illegal aliens crossing through parks near the U.S.- Mexico border are part of a growing crime scene.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050808/ai_n14856238/?tag=content;col1

But like increasing incidents of road rage, the stress of modern urban life, especially in the post-9/11 world of terrorism, may have something to do with it as well.

"We're suffering from the same societal problems that most urban areas are," says park service spokesman David Barna, who notes that park rangers interact with 1 million visitors a day.

FBI agents "are not face to face with the public the way we are," says Mr. Barna. "We're more like cops -- metropolitan police organizations."

Here in Oregon recently, two rangers at Crater Lake National Park attempted to calm a man at the Mazama campground who had been involved in a domestic disturbance, loudly threatening people, disrupting an evening program, and leaving campers cowering in their tents. Undeterred by pepper spray, he came at the rangers with a club. They finally fatally shot the man.

The National Park Service (NPS) is a huge organization whose 20,000 professionals and 125,000 volunteers oversee 388 parks, monuments, battlefields, historic sites, lakeshores, recreation areas, scenic rivers and trails, and the White House.

Based on interviews with Interior and Park Service officials, GAO reported that "the department's law enforcement staff is already spread thin . . . averaging one law enforcement officer for about every 110,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of land."

Honestly, if I was out by myself for an considerable amount of time, away from quick help, I'd want to carry. I'm a woman, and there are plenty of nutty men out there.

Plus, in some cases, self-defense is required against an animal. I'm anti-bear hunting, but if it was me or the bear, I'd pick me.

...parks are strapped as it is...this is a cowardly piece of legislation.

Allowing people to exercise the privilege of concealed carry in national parks won't cost anyone anything at all.

I'm asking honestly because I've seen that claim made, though it isn't spelled out in the actual amendment itself, which says:



I'm not sure which of these would apply to CCW specifically and exclusively ...

ie, in Texas, I can carry a loaded rifle in my truck, but not in Virginia. In Texas, I can't carry a loaded rifle into a state park, but I can carry a concealed pistol if I have a CHL.

rifles in national parks (which it may, I don't know) then this law allows them in national parks in Texas, as far as I can tell ...

Texas doesn't have 'open carry', but carrying openly is not prohibited in places that are available to hunt (prividing in season, proper hunting license, etc..) so if national parks aren't open for hunting (I'm assuming not) then I doubt it's an issue.

That's what I'm trying to clarify. I've seen people claim that this applies only to CCW, but based on the text of the amendment that doesn't seem accurate.

I'm not saying that to argue against the amendment, just to get clarification.

.. the same as the Bush DOI memo, though it's been reported as only applying to CCW.

That's the one against which the Brady campaign managed to get a preliminary injunction. The Coburn amendment does, indeed, apply to all firearms.

As X-digger rightly points out, that means that what is permissible very much depends on state law. Here in Washington state, for example, it's illegal to carry a loaded long gun in your vehicle, and it's only legal to carry a loaded handgun if you have a state Concealed Pistol License. And while Washington is an "open carry" state, exactly how that applies to long guns has not quite been settled by jurisprudence. Openly carrying a handgun in a holster is not considering "brandishing" (carrying a weapon "in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons") but carrying a long gun apparently ready to be used (not slung muzzle up, visible magazine in place, etc.) outside a hunting area is a bad idea since State v. Spencer (1994).

(I AM NOT A LAWYER AND DO NOT PLAY ONE ON TV)

Our section on firearms:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41
Note there is no prohibition on open carry.

9.41.060 has this exemption for carrying:

(8) Any person engaging in a lawful outdoor recreational activity such as hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, or horseback riding, only if, considering all of the attendant circumstances, including but not limited to whether the person has a valid hunting or fishing license, it is reasonable to conclude that the person is participating in lawful outdoor activities or is traveling to or from a legitimate outdoor recreation area;


Hiking or horseback is justification for posession of a weapon, out of doors. We have no statue that forbids firearms in National Parks, therefore, I will no longer have to worry if I am impinging on the boundary between public lands, such as national forests, and a national park (of which there are two nearby) when I am carrying.


NONE of this will PERMIT actually FIRING a weapon in a national park for ANY purpose, except self-defense. Better not fuck around, our rangers are pretty savvy at catching people, and people like me will turn in neer-do-wells in a heartbeat.

...a huge disaster waiting to happen.

For the issuance of concealed-carry permits.

It hasn't happened yet.

...in them? Because people take guns into National Parks and fire them, illegally. They tend to shoot the "no guns signs" because it probably gives them a macho trip.

The point I'm making is that people already bring guns into National Parks. Stopping and searching every vehicle was always too much work, so keeping people with guns out has always been difficult if not even practiced.

This merely allows law abiding citizens to defend themselves from psychos who want to do harm.

since WW2.

People without other options go to the woods.

I take long motorcycle rides and camp in the National Parks, State Parks, National Forrests, and so on pretty often. Most of the places I stay are very remote. I always carry (legally) a pistol on my rides. Been doing it for years, never fired a shot.

Which is legal everywhere.

another illogical but popular response

THIS is a fear canard:




And here's another one:





Clear?

the fear canard goes thusly...

why are you afraid? the chance you will have to use your gun is incredibly small , especially in national parks (which have a lower crime rate by a big factor)), therefore you are just irrationally afraid.

the premise

1) the chance you will have to use your gun is very small

but the conclusion does not logically follow.

analogy. the chance i will have to use my fire insurance is very very small.

but i do not have fire insurance because i am irrationally afraid of fire. it's a matter of making a small investment that protects me against an extremely unlikely event, but one that would be catastrophic if it happens.

hth

the irrationality is assuming that one who supports gun rights (in parks or elsewhere) is afraid.

Your house burning down only impacts you. Your gun can impact others. And don't try to tell me that crimes with guns are only committed by people who have the guns illegally.

which is why it is an analogy and not an exact comparison.

but i have seen zero evidence (feel free to provide some if you can find it) that even suggests that allowing concealed carry results in more violence and/or more deaths.

that prediction was made in florida, for example, which passed CCW and saw violent (and other crime) go down.

my gun can impact others postively OR negatively.

i know the stats from people with CCW's (feel free to check. posted here ad nauseum) shows that they commit far less crime, violent or otherwise than other citizens.

so, by what possible rationale does extending gun rights in national parks to the same level as those outside national parks result in more negative impact to OTHERS?

your question of course, is a totally seperate issue from the fear canard, which is what i was responding to, though. the false notion that people who carry guns are in fear.

your question is a policy question, not a fear canard, and for that... i salute you

Canard is a French word for a duck, and is often used in English to refer to a deliberately false story, originating from an abbreviated form of an old French idiom, "vendre un canard à moitié," meaning "to half-sell a duck."

Please tell us what the motivation is.

is that i want civil rights protected.

same reason i support the 5th, 4th, etc. i don't FEAR needing any of those rights in the future, but i want them protected for all.

heck, i support CCW for people OUTSIDE national parks even though it has no affect on me. i can carry on my badge. i don't NEED CCW to carry in the city. i support it for others. because i support civil rights.

as to what my motivation for supporting CCW in national parks is it is

1) to expand the same level of civil rights inside the parks as outside

fear (see: fear canard) has nothing to do with it.

i don't fear my house catching on fire, but i have fire insurance.

i don't fear a katrina like episode, but i have 6 months of food storage, a lot of bottled water, and water filters.

i don't fear ever having to use my gun (off duty. i've already used it on duty). but i want the right to choose to carry respected.

i'm a competitive strength athlete. nationally ranked. my wife is a kickboxer. we have far less to "fear" than the average joe/jane. that's not the point.

it's about civil rights and choice

And that's precisely point.

You and whoever you wrote wrote about- maybe your wife- you sound to us like a couple of fraidy cats.

Come on over and dive with us- or just have a swim with us- better yet venture on up to the top end. There are things out there to be afraid of.

The world really is dangerous with fire, medical disasters, and violence. Prepared people do much better than people who just assume it will be somebody else that has the bad luck.

are both EXCEEDINGLY rare.

my chance of my house catching fire is VERY VERY small. but the consequences would be dire.

so i carry fire insurance.

my chance of having to use my firearm off duty are also rare. but it's MY choice.

that's how citizens live. the other guy can be a subject. we'll make our own choices.

and the most important thing is that i am advocating for other's rights. i can carry lots of places w/o even needing a CCW.

i support RKBA because i believe in the rights of others, not how it will benefit me.

What were all of the men who ended up killing their wives and kids were thinkg whe they went out- bought their handguns and brought them home were thinking?

Were they thinking: hey I'm going to go off like Jack Nicholson in The Shining?

Nope- they were afraid of- fill in the blank _______________

You're many times MORE likelt to perpetrate a crime- or have one visitied on your own family and friends by having a gun in your hous- being a fraidy cat than by living your lives without fear or the need to show (or falsely feel like) that you're some sort of tough guy.

Because you're not. You're just a coward. Like Sean Hannity. And that's the bottom line.

Now, aside from you calling me a coward which is so very childish.

The numbers of people who kill their wives and kids is not very high. The number of men who kill their wives and kids with a gun is even lower. Because when they go off like jack nicholson in the shining they sometimes use a knife or gasoline or whatever. True it is usually a gun but they kill people whether they have a gun or not.

The number of people killed by alcohol is somewhere between 2 and 10 times as much as guns.
You don't want alcohol banned do you? No of course not. So your concern isn't actually about people getting hurt.
You just don't like guns. The probably scare you.

When I go running I pass a house on a major road you probably saw on the news. A woman lived there. She was on the phone with her family when somebody knocked on the door so she hung up the phone. When the police got there about an hour later the house was on fire and they found her in the basement hanged by neck with an extension cord. I'm sure she thought there was no reason to be armed when she answered the door.

You go ahead and think there is no reason for others to be armed. You are simply wrong.

The boogy man is not me carrying around a gun. It is other humans you come into contact with right now as you go about your daily life.
When somebody knocks on your door at night or asks you for a cigarette in a parking lot, it isn't me. But they are as real as fire and sharks. Feel free to pretend they are not.

"You're many times MORE likelt to perpetrate a crime- or have one visitied on your own family and friends by having a gun in your hous"

No, you're not. In fact, there's zero provable causation between owning a gun and violent crime. The studies people cite to claim that there is, in fact, specifically say only that there's a higher instance of correlation. But, as anybody versed in actual science will tell you, correlation is not causation, and it's no suprise that there would be a higher rate of gun ownership in areas where violent crime is common.

as for fear, that's silly.

i don't fear my house catching on fire. i carry fire insurance as a preventive measure.

ditto for carrying a firearm.

ditto for food and water.

i have traveled nicaragua, costa rica, and panama. on my own. i've been in shootouts, and i've been cited for bravery. so don't tell me i'm afraid.

it's not a fear thang.

it's a choice thang.

Fraidy cat!

Do you have smoke detectors in your home?

Fraidy cat!

Do you have spare keys?

Fraidy cat!

Do use your headlights at night?

Fraidy cat!

Do you wear a condom when you fuck?

Fraidy cat!

get the point?

Why are you scared of guns? They are tools, nothing more. If I carried a weapon into a park, it would be for the same reason I'd bring a compass or first-aid kit. I'd rather have these tools and not need them then need them and not have them.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've been hiking in N. Arizona and New Mexico and done a little hiking here in Indiana. Have I ever used a compass in the wilderness? No, but the prospect of using one doesn't fill me with fear. I'm not unwilling or unable to use one.

My fraidy cat theme was in response to your childish posts but lets get serious and talk about cowardice. My opinion is that it is cowardly to place blame on a tool while being unwilling or unable to blame the person that used it. It's cowardly to punish millions of responsible gun-owners for crimes they haven't committed or that they might commit. It's cowardly to attempt to control people and say they don't have a right to defend themselves/hunt/target shoot/collect or carry a firearm. It's cowardly to place all your faith in other people to protect you.

All I expect is a flip remark but I'll ask anyway. What scares you so much about a passing a hiker/camper with a rifle on his pack or a pistol in her holster? Honestly, I'm curious.

swimming and diving wouldn't be among them.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:popcorn:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How is that anti-gun? :wtf:

So were the follow-up questions.

Including that one.

Who knew? :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:eyes:

One imagines- and probably accurately- that you've never seen a bear up close and personal.

Even a little one.

Rule of thumb: cougars, black bear and wolves won't attack you unless they mistake you for food. Grizzlies won't attack you unless they gauge you to be a threat.

Knowing how to behave in the presence of predators is your best defense; your state dept. of fish & wildlife should have some useful pamphlets with pointers. If that fails, bear spray seems to work better than bullets. I sure as hell wouldn't trust my carry piece to stop a bear, but frankly, I'm not overly worried about predators.

That having been said, insofar as I would be inclined to carry in National Parks, it would be for protection against humans. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I've read reports of smash-and-grab gangs working over the parking lots at trailheads on the Olympic Peninsula and in the Cascades, and getting violent with any hiker who happened to return unexpectedly. In some instances, they've posted armed lookouts. A friend of my wife came very close to being assaulted while hiking alone in the Olympic National Park, which was averted by the timely arrival of another couple of hikers.

And I think most proponents of carrying in National Parks are, like me, more concerned about two-legged threats than about four-legged ones.

"If signed into law, this bill would create confusion for visitors who may not know what law would apply to the national park they are visiting, and would further complicate the job of America’s understaffed national park ranger corps,” said John Waterman, president of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police."

That statement is just plain silly- this _removes_ a level of confusion- the laws will be the same as they are for the rest of the state. Carving out a special exception for national parks _adds_ to the confusion, not removing it.

:sarcasm:

If you did, you'd use one of the online tools used to plan where it's legal or not.

http://www.carryconcealed.net/packngo

You'd know where it's legal to carry in any of the states you pass through on your way to the national park.

which is in three different states and so is governed by three different laws. Montana recognizes CCW licenses from more states than Wyoming does, so an out-of-state visitor who enters Yellowstone legally through Gardiner or West Yellowstone might could be breaking the law by the time they hit Old Faithful. Travelers on the Blue Ridge Parkway might be legal in Virginia and wind up breaking the law in North Carolina. (I don't actually know how different those two states' gun laws are--just a theoretical example.)

..typically research their trips so as to stay legal as they go. They're already used to having to stop before some states and stow their weapon, or unload it, or even put a trigger lock on it.

(There are trip planners to help, see http://apps.carryconcealed.net/packngo)

I don't doubt that they'd take the trouble to grab a map and see where the state lines are, and make sure they're in compliance.

you suggested that the new amendment clarifies things rather than causing confusion. But before this amendment it was very clear: you couldn't carry--even with a license--in national parks, wildlife refuges, or recreation areas. Now it is not as clear, but rather requires some research as to the reciprocity laws of the state(s) which house the park(s) you plan on visiting.

As you say, plenty of license holders will take the time to do the research--I don't doubt that. I was just clarifying.

Like the state parks around the Blue Ridge Parkway (Stone Mountain, Julian Price, etc.) or places like the south end of utah that has national forests next to national parks scattered all over.

National parks that encompass multiple states than there are mixed areas inside a single state. So overall, less confusion.

I dare anyone to figure out where you are and are not allowed to carry around that town.

Were they throwing rocks up to now?

Other crazy drunk campers?

I speak as one who watched bears raiding the garbage cans in Yosemite and begging for food in Yellowstone (because begging from tourists is easier than actually hunting for food). I never felt threatened.

but my cousin's husband has spent his career as a law enforcement officer in the national parks. He deals with drunk or doped idiots all the time. If they were armed ....

The same laws apply to carry in parks as in grocery stores and malls and all the other places. If you are not allowed to carry a concealed handgun anyplace else, you can't do it in the park.
Of course, criminals don't obey the laws. So they are already armed.

Here in Washington state, there are smash-and-grab gangs that work over the parking lots at the trailheads in the Olympic National Park and elsewhere. They go from car to car, smashing in a window and emptying out the contents. They've been known to beat up hikers who showed up and tried to intervene, and on at least one occasion, they've posted armed lookouts on the trail.

If they are the assholes in RL that they are here on DU, they are likely frequent targets.

I ask a simple question and get attacked. For asking a question.

From now on, I see someone carrying a gun, I am not even going to say hello. That might offend them.

:sarcasm:

Cause I didn't. That's why I asked.

Duh.

Who is making personal attacks and insults?

You can be as polite or impolite as you want. You are unlikely to provoke a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm. They have a VERY low violent crime rate.
Feel free to ignore them, but please don't try to restrict them simply because they choose to legally carry a tool that you choose not to carry.

I just asked a question. And the assholes attacked.

I guess I will go elsewhere to educate myself on this issue from now on.

You'll get respect & some good info there.

exercising legal options to defend my life and property without being treated like a common criminal or a mass shooting waiting to happen. Maybe I'll take my Makarov on my next hiking trip.

So yeah, this is good news, and the Brady Campaign press releases have been hilarious to boot. "AK-47s in National Parks", yeah right. Who's afraid now?

anytime the urge hits me.

If I have a damn good reason and I mean a damn good reason, I can fire the weapon.

In receiving a license to carry a concealed weapon for lawful self-defense, you are undertaking a great responsibility. A license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to use it. I am sure you share my hope that you will never find it necessary to use a weapon in self-defense. If you do, the law will protect you only if you have acted within the law. Those who are choosing to arm themselves with weapons should, therefore, be armed with the most indispensable weapon of all knowledge.

********snip*******

Q. Are there special laws that apply to the use of Handguns?

A. Yes, special laws apply anytime anyone uses deadly force, whether or not the weapon is concealed. Florida law defines deadly force as force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm. When you carry a handgun, you possess a weapon of deadly force. The law considers even an unloaded gun to be a deadly weapon when it is pointed at someone.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

The same rules would apply in national parks in Florida.

The same rules of justification apply in a national park as anywhere else. And those rules apply to anyone, concealed permit or not. There are times when private citizens are legally justified in firing a weapon in places they normally are not legally allowed to do so.

the last time i was in Yellowstone, I saw a Grizzly with two cubs at the side of the road. She was actually sunbathing and nursing these cubs. Amazing sight.

So all these cars were stopped so people could look and they were taking pictures and the mentally challenged among them decided to get out of their cars to take a picture to get a "better one".

Now in my opinion, getting out of your car with a mother grizzly nearby is about as dumb as you can be. But hey, people are dumb.

What I fear is a conceal and carry dummy deciding to shoot first and question the actions of the grizzly later.

Now no one got hurt in the incident I described, as the rangers forced everyone to move along because Mom Grizzly wanted to cross the road to get to a particular patch of berries she knew about and apparently the park rangers knew too.

But what happens if a bunch of dipshits start killing wildlife because they feel threatened?

Personally I don't have a problem with hunting in general, know lots of people who participate. Don't have a problem with guns either, however this makes mew wonder.

the truth is that the dipshits already have guns in the parks because they figure they are so smart they won't get caught. Typical criminal mentality.
On average, people who carry concealed handguns legally get into less criminal trouble than cops.

It's not a simple cut and dry "we can kill animals now on the parks."

the law and what's going on around them. These people have to go through training and jump through hoops before they get the permit.It seems to me they aren't going to go out there and just start shooting up the place. That would be for the uninformed and ignorant person carrying illegally, which is happening with or without this law.

The folks tossing around the fighting words and hate filled speech are by far and away the anti-gun crowd. One has to wonder about their ability to keep their emotions in check.

A gun is a very handy tool to have some times.

I have made a point to carry a gun, or two, or three, in a National Park for more than 30 years - way before it was legal.

The park is Big Bend National Park.

It is in the middle of a major drug smuggling route and several years ago warning signs were posted that areas of the park along the Rio Grande were dangerous because of the narcotrafficantes.

I have been there many times, but never without at least a 12 guage pump in the car - and often with a 1911 tucked into my waistband under my shirt.

Thank God I never encountered a drug smuggler, but it the situation had of arisen and my hand was forced, I would have used whatever it took to get myself and my family out of a life-threatening situation.

Of course, I have been either a Texas or Federal LEO since 1992, so I probably could have avoided trouble if the SHTF.

"plan to use" and "prepared to use". You seem to be describing the latter.

I know other former cops who always carry as long as there aren't metal detectors. I think they have seen what people are really like and are not as comfortable in society as the average joe. The rest of us get to assume people aren't that bad. Former cops don't have that luxury.

Are you saying I shouldn't have them?